Tag: Law

Categories
Politics

Texas abortion legislation in impact as Supreme Courtroom makes no transfer to dam it

Texas abortion law in effect as Supreme Court makes no move to block it

Pedestrians walk past the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, United States on Sunday, June 20, 2021.

Stefani Reynolds | Bloomberg | Getty Images

A Texas law banning most abortions went into effect Wednesday after the Supreme Court failed to respond to an urgency complaint to block its enforcement.

A group of abortion providers and advocates, including Planned Parenthood, had asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block enforcement of the law that would ban most abortions as early as six weeks of gestation.

The petitioners say the law would set Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that enshrined women’s right to abortion, essentially overturning it.

In response, a group of Texas officials, including Attorney General Ken Paxton, urged the Supreme Court to reject their opponents’ offer to thwart the law, calling the request “bold”.

SB 8 was enacted in May by Republican Governor Greg Abbott. It prohibits doctors from performing or having abortions after they “detect a fetal heartbeat in the unborn child” except in medical emergencies.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

The law prohibits state officials from enforcing these rules. Rather, it empowers anyone to bring civil actions against anyone who performs abortions or “helps or assists” them after a heartbeat is detected. These lawsuits can earn a minimum of $ 10,000 in “legal damages” per abortion.

If it went into effect, the bill would “immediately and catastrophically restrict access to abortion in Texas, ban the care of at least 85% of abortion patients in Texas,” and likely force many providers to shut down, the urgency motion filed Monday said .

This motion was filed directly with Conservative Judge Samuel Alito, who is handling inquiries from the Lone Star State. It was filed days after a lower appeals court refused to block implementation of the law.

Alito had asked respondents to respond to the appeal by 5 p.m. ET Tuesday.

“In less than two days, Texan politicians will have effectively overthrown Roe v. Wade,” said Nancy Northup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, whose organization helped the Supreme Court filing the motion, in a statement Monday.

The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority of 6: 3 after the administration of former President Donald Trump, is already supposed to hear arguments in a potentially decisive abortion case from Mississippi. This state has urged judges to reconsider existing precedents preventing states from banning abortions that occur before the fetus is viable.

This is the evolution of news. Please check again for updates.

– CNBC’s Christine Wang contributed to this report.

Categories
World News

Hong Kong Protester Is Sentenced to 9 Years in First Safety Legislation Case

Hong Kong Protester Is Sentenced to 9 Years in First Security Law Case

HONG KONG — A Hong Kong court sentenced a protester to nine years in prison on Friday for terrorism and inciting secession, highlighting the power of a sweeping new national security law to deter those who might speak out against the authorities.

The protester, Tong Ying-kit, had faced up to life in prison after being convicted earlier this week. The case against Mr. Tong, who crashed a motorcycle into police officers while flying a protest flag, was the first brought under the security law, which was imposed on Hong Kong by China’s central government last year.

His case has heightened concerns among activists and legal experts that the security law is transforming Hong Kong’s judicial system, which is separate from mainland China’s. They fear that cherished civil and political rights are being trampled under a push to eliminate the sort of unrest and widespread opposition that was seen in the city during months of mass protests in 2019.

The power to interpret the security law rests with Beijing, and some observers say the outcome of Mr. Tong’s trial shows how much less space Hong Kong’s courts will have to weigh individual rights when considering security-related charges.

“Thus far, the government has run the table on N.S.L. cases, both on key procedural matters and now on guilty verdicts,” said Thomas Kellogg, executive director of the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, using an abbreviation for the national security law. “This is not a good sign that the courts will be able to mitigate the worst elements of the N.S.L..”

Mr. Tong, 24, was arrested on July 1 of last year after colliding with police officers while driving his motorcycle, which had a flag mounted on it that bore a popular protest slogan. Three officers were injured.

He was held for a year without bail. Instead of facing a jury, as is customary for serious crimes in Hong Kong, he was tried by a panel of three judges, all of them from a group of jurists selected by Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, to hear security law cases.

Mr. Tong’s lawyers acknowledged that he had driven dangerously but said his actions did not amount to terrorism. They noted that he had been carrying first aid equipment, and that he had scheduled a lunch meeting with friends near the site of his collision with police.

During the 2019 protests, the slogan on Mr. Tong’s banner — “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” — was widely chanted, written on signs and spray-painted on walls. Defense witnesses argued that the phrase did not have a single, specific meaning, but instead expressed a broad desire for fundamental change.

But the court ruled that a call to separate Hong Kong from China was one key meaning of the phrase, and that the context of Mr. Tong’s motorcycle ride — in which he repeatedly defied the police on the day after the security law came into effect — showed that he intended to convey that secessionist message.

Legal scholars said that finding would be significant not just for other cases involving the “Liberate Hong Kong” slogan, but for an array of language that will now be parsed for illegal meanings.

“This is a green light for the prosecution to do more ambitious prosecutions in the future,” said Surya Deva, an associate professor of law at City University of Hong Kong. “People will be more careful about what they say and what they write about, because anything could be argued by the government as being capable of having that meaning of inciting secession.”

More than 130 people have been arrested under the security law over the past year, and more than 60 have been charged. Most of those awaiting trial are accused of nonviolent offenses. They include dozens of opposition politicians who prosecutors say committed subversion by trying to win an election, gain control of Hong Kong’s legislature and block the government’s agenda.

Categories
Health

What Is HIPAA and How Does the Legislation Work?

What Is HIPAA and How Does the Law Work?

As September lures people back to the office and the highly contagious Delta variant of the coronavirus spreads rapidly across the country, workplaces face a number of challenges, including having to vaccinate employees or reimposing mask requirements.

Some, including Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, oppose these calls because she falsely claimed this week that disclosure of vaccination status was “a violation of my HIPAA rights,” the federal ordinance protecting confidential health information.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA, regulates the confidentiality of a patient’s medical records, but it is legal to ask Ms. Greene about her medical history. Still, their claim reflects a misperception that has spread through social media and fringe sites as online misinformation and misrepresentation about vaccines helps fuel resistance to vaccination.

Here’s a look at what privacy regulations HIPAA offers and why it’s so often misinterpreted.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the HIPAA Act, a comprehensive health and privacy law that helped update and regulate the electronic processing of health insurance sales and personal medical information storage.

One aspect of the law, the Privacy Policy, makes it illegal for certain individuals and organizations, including healthcare providers, insurers, clearing houses, that store and manage health data, and their business partners, to share a patient’s medical records without the patient’s express consent. These parties process the patient’s health records on a daily basis.

No. The law only applies to businesses and healthcare professionals, although some people falsely suggest otherwise, as Ms. Greene suggested, that the measure provides protection against disclosure of personal health information similar to the fifth amendment.

HIPAA is extremely “tight,” said I. Glenn Cohen, an expert in bioethics and health law at the Harvard School of Law. “If someone says to you, ‘HIPAA prohibits this,’ ask them to point out the part of the law or regulation that prohibits it. They often fail to do that. “

In addition, the law does not prohibit anything from asking about a person’s health, whether it be vaccination status or showing that this information is correct.

Regardless, some have turned to the law as an excuse to divert such questions.

In July, North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson falsely claimed on Facebook that President Biden’s door-to-door campaign to promote vaccination and whether residents were vaccinated was “illegal” under HIPAA.

However, the law does not apply to employers, retail stores or journalists, among others. No federal law prevents companies from requiring their employees to be vaccinated, although there are certain exceptions if you have a disability or have a sincere religious belief.

Updated

July 22, 2021, 1:43 p.m. ET

You also don’t need to tell if you have been vaccinated. Disclosure is at your discretion.

Long before social media and marginal news sites spread harmful misinformation, like whether masks work (they do) or whether the coronavirus vaccine changes your DNA (it doesn’t), HIPAA and its use as a privacy rationale have often lent itself to len itself Misinterpretations.

“I often joke that while HIPAA is five-letter, it is treated like a four-letter word,” Cohen said. Doctors, he said, have often used this as a reason “not to do something they don’t want to do, such as giving a patient certain information by saying, perhaps believing but wrongly,” Well, that would be a HIPAA violation “.. ‘”

However, experts say that maintaining false claims does further harm and misunderstandings about HIPAA and vaccine skepticism among politicians and public figures.

“This rumor might not be particularly harmful in itself, but it is part of one of the most harmful narratives,” said Tara Kirk Sell, assistant professor of health safety at Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health. “It’s especially a problem when there is an information gap and in that case people don’t know what HIPAA is.”

Ms. Greene previously spread misinformation about HIPAA and about vaccines. Twitter suspended her account this week after claiming Covid-19 was not dangerous for young, healthy people – a claim the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have disproved.

“The HIPAA laws are real and they do something important,” said Ms. Sell. “The misinterpretation of what this is about only adds to this firestorm of anti-vaccine sentiment.”

Categories
Politics

Biden Helps Altering Army Legislation on Sexual Assault Instances

Biden Supports Changing Military Law on Sexual Assault Cases

President Biden said Friday that he wanted the military to remove the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases from the control of commanders, a sea change for the military justice system.

An independent commission formally recommended to Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III this week that sexual assault, sexual harassment and related cases be shifted to special victims prosecutors outside of the chain of command in the military, something military leaders have long resisted, arguing that it would hinder order and discipline.

“Sexual assault is an abuse of power and an affront to our shared humanity,” Mr. Biden said in a prepared statement. “And sexual assault in the military is doubly damaging because it also shreds the unity and cohesion that is essential to the functioning of the U.S. military and to our national defense.”

While Mr. Austin and Mr. Biden have supported the findings of the commission — which are all but certain to receive pushback from officials from some branches of the military — it will be up to Congress to change the military law.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, has a bipartisan measure that would overhaul the way the military prosecutes sexual assault but also other serious crimes, which some lawmakers believe is crucial in adjudicating cases like the one involving Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen. Law enforcement officials said she was killed by another soldier at Fort Hood last year.

Her bill has gained support from at least 70 members of the Senate — including many who voted against the same bill in 2014, arguing it would undermine commanders. Reconciling her bill with the vision of the commission will now be in the hands of lawmakers.

In 2019, the Defense Department found that there were 7,825 reports of sexual assault involving service members as victims, a 3 percent increase from 2018. The conviction rate for cases was unchanged from 2018 to 2019; 7 percent of cases that the command took action on resulted in conviction, the lowest rate since the department began reporting in 2010.

“I want to recognize the experience of our service members who have survived sexual assault and the bravery of those who have shared their stories with the world and advocated for reform,” Mr. Biden said, adding, “I hope this announcement offers some reassurance that the Department of Defense leadership stands with you, starting with your commander in chief.”

Categories
World News

Hong Kong’s Safety Regulation: One 12 months Later, a Metropolis Remade

Hong Kong's Security Law: One Year Later, a City Remade

HONG KONG – With each passing day, the border between Hong Kong and the rest of China is fading faster.

The Chinese Communist Party is rebuilding this city, permeating its once lively, irreverent character with ever more open signs of its authoritarian will. The structure of daily life is attacked as Beijing shapes Hong Kong into something more familiar, more docile.

Local residents are now teeming with police hotlines with reports of disloyal neighbors or colleagues. Teachers were told to fill students with patriotic zeal through 48-volume book sets entitled “My Home Is In China.” Public libraries have withdrawn dozens of books, including one on Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

Hong Kong has always been an improbability. It was a flourishing metropolis on a headland of inhospitable land, an oasis of civil liberties under iron rule. As a former British colony that returned to China in 1997, the city was promised freedom of speech, assembly and press unimaginable on the mainland in an agreement that Beijing called “one country, two systems”.

But under Xi Jinping, China’s leader, the Communist Party is fed up with Hong Kong’s dueling identities. For the party, they made the city unpredictable and even brought it to the brink of rebellion in 2019 when anti-government protests erupted.

Now, armed with the sweeping national security law it imposed on the city a year ago, Beijing is pushing to transform Hong Kong into yet another of its mainland megacities: economic engines that instantly stifle disagreements.

“Hong Kong people from all walks of life have also recognized that ‘one country’ is the foundation and foundation of ‘two systems’,” said Luo Huining, Beijing’s senior official in Hong Kong, this month.

Hong Kong today is a montage of unfamiliar and for many unsettling scenes. Police officers were goose-stepped in the Chinese military style, replacing decades of British-style marching. City guides regularly denounce “external elements” that seek to undermine the country’s stability.

Senior officials in Hong Kong have gathered with their hands raised to pledge allegiance to the country, just as mainland bureaucrats are regularly called to “biao tai”, Mandarin, to “express their position”.

When the government ordered ordinary employees to sign a written version of the oath, HW Li, a seven-year-old civil servant, resigned.

The new requirements not only require loyalty professions; they also warn of dismissal or other vague consequences in the event of violations. Mr. Li heard some supervisors nag their co-workers to fill out the form right away, and employees vie for how quickly they complied.

“The rules that should protect everyone – as employees and as citizens alike – are being weakened,” said Mr. Li.

In some corners of society the rules have been completely rewritten. However, Beijing denies failing to keep its promises to Hong Kong and insists on reiterating them.

When China revised Hong Kong’s electoral system to purge disloyal candidates, Beijing described the change as “Hong Kong’s perfecting electoral system.” When Apple Daily, a major pro-democracy newspaper, was forced to close after police arrested its senior executives, the party said the publication had abused “so-called freedom of the press”. When dozens of opposition politicians organized an informal pre-election, Chinese officials accused them of subversion and arrested them.

China’s power has become so ubiquitous that Chan Tat Ching, once a hero of the Hong Kong democracy movement, spent the past year urging his friends not to challenge Beijing.

Three decades ago, after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, Chan, a Hong Kong businessman, helped direct an operation that smuggled students and academics from the mainland.

But Beijing is more demanding today than it was in 1989, Chan said. It had intimidated Hong Kong without even sending troops; that demanded respect.

He admitted that the security law was enforced too strictly, but said that nothing could be done.

“Some young people don’t understand. They think the Communist Party is a paper tiger, ”he said. “The Communist Party is a real tiger.”

China’s new power has also established itself in the Hong Kong business community. For decades, the mainland economy had tried to catch up with that of Hong Kong, the financial center so proud of its global identity that its government dubbed it “Asia’s metropolis.”

Now China’s economy is booming, and officials are increasingly turning Hong Kong’s global identity towards that one country.

Chinese state-owned companies have recently moved into offices in Hong Kong’s iconic skyscrapers that have been vacated by foreign banks. In November, Meituan, a Chinese grocer, ousted Swire, a British conglomerate, from the city’s main stock index. Financial analysts have called it the end of an era.

The rush on the mainland money has brought some new conditions with it.

After Beijing ruled that only “patriots” could run for office in Hong Kong earlier this year, the Bank of China International – a state-run institution – posted an advertisement for a director-level position stating that candidates should be “the country.” love”.

The central government is trying to convince Hong Kongers that the compromises on the mainland’s promise of prosperity are worthwhile. Officials encourage young Hong Kong residents to study and work in southern China’s cities of Shenzhen and Guangzhou, saying that those who do not go risk missing out on opportunities.

Toby Wong, 23, grew up in Hong Kong and had never considered working on the mainland. Her mother came from the mainland for work decades earlier. The salaries there were significantly lower.

But recently, Ms. Wong saw a subway advertisement promoting open positions in Shenzhen, in which the Hong Kong government promised to subsidize nearly $ 1,300 from a $ 2,300 monthly wage – more than at many entry-level positions at home. A high-speed rail link between the two cities allowed her to return to her mother at the weekend, who has to support Ms. Wong financially.

Ms. Wong applied to two Chinese technology companies.

“It’s not a political question. It’s a practical question, ”she said.

After all, the government is hoping to make the motivation political. At the heart of Beijing’s campaign is an attempt to educate future generations who will never think of separating the party’s interests from their own.

China’s firm grip

    • Behind the Hong Kong acquisition: A year ago, the city’s freedoms were being curtailed at breakneck speed. But the crackdown took years and many signals were overlooked.
    • Mapping China’s Post-Covid Path: China’s leader Xi Jinping tries to balance trust and caution as his country moves forward while other places continue to grapple with the pandemic.
    • A challenge for US global leadership: As President Biden predicts a battle between democracies and their adversaries, Beijing seeks to defend the other side.
    • ‘Red Tourism’ is flourishing: New and improved attractions dedicated to the history of the Communist Party, or an adjusted version of it, draw crowds ahead of the party’s centenary.

The Hong Kong government has issued hundreds of pages of new curriculum guidelines designed to “inspire affection for the Chinese people.” The geography class must confirm China’s control over the disputed areas of the South China Sea. Schoolchildren from the age of 6 learn the criminal offenses according to the Security Act.

Lo Kit Ling, who teaches a citizenship course at a high school, now makes sure to say only positive things about China in class. Although she has always tried to offer multiple perspectives on any subject, she feared that a critical perspective could be taken out of context by a student or parent.

Ms. Lo’s subject is particularly sensitive – city leaders have accused her of poisoning Hong Kong’s youth. The course had encouraged students to critically analyze China and convey the country’s economic successes alongside topics such as the Tiananmen Square raid.

Officials have ordered that the subject be replaced with an abbreviated version that emphasizes the positive.

“It’s not a class. It’s like brainwashing, ”said Ms. Lo. Instead, she will teach an elective in Hospitality Studies.

Not only school children are asked to watch out for dissenting opinions. In November, Hong Kong police opened a hotline to report suspected security law violations. “#YouCanHelp #SaveHK,” wrote the police on Twitter. An official recently applauded residents for leaving more than 100,000 messages in six months.

Constant neighborhood surveillance by informants is one of the Communist Party’s most effective tools for social control on the mainland. It’s supposed to keep people like Johnny Yui Siu Lau, a radio host in Hong Kong, from being so free in his criticism of China.

Mr. Lau said a producer recently told him that a listener reported him to the Broadcasting Authority.

“It will be a competition or a struggle to see how people in Hong Kong can protect freedom of expression,” Lau said.

Other freedoms that were once at the core of Hong Kong’s identity are disappearing. The government announced that it would censor films that are considered a threat to national security. Some officials have called for works of art by dissidents like Ai Weiwei to be banned from museums.

However, Hong Kong is not just another metropolis on the mainland. Residents have proven extremely reluctant to give up their freedom, and some have rushed to preserve totems of a discreet Hong Kong identity.

Masks labeled “Made in Hong Kong” are very popular. A local boy band, Mirror, has become a source of hope and pride as interest in canto pop resurfaces.

Last summer, Herbert Chow, who owns the children’s clothing chain Chickeeduck, installed a two-meter-tall protester figure – a woman with a gas mask and a protest flag – and other protest art in his shops.

But Mr Chow, 57, has come under pressure from his landlords, several of whom have refused to renew his leases. Last year there were 13 chickeeduck stores in Hong Kong; now there are five. He is unsure how long his city can withstand the burglaries of Beijing.

“Fear – it can make you stronger because you don’t want to live under fear,” he said. Or “it can kill your desire to fight.”

Joy Dong contributed to the research.

Categories
Politics

Justice Dept. to Sue Georgia Over Voting Legislation

Justice Dept. to Sue Georgia Over Voting Law

The Justice Department is suing Georgia over a comprehensive electoral law passed by the state’s Republican-led legislature, a Congressional official said Friday, a key move by the Biden administration to counter state-level electoral restrictions in place since the 2020 election.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland was expected to announce the lawsuit late Friday morning.

The lawsuit is among the highest-profile enforcement actions launched under the Voting Act since the Supreme Court gutted a key provision in 2013 that allowed the Justice Department to prevent states from passing laws that facilitate discrimination against voters.

The lawsuit shows that the Justice Department, under the von Biden administration, intends to use the remaining tools at its disposal to aggressively oppose government actions it regards as potentially disenfranchised minority voters.

Mr Garland said earlier this month that the ministry would use all available tools to tackle voter discrimination.

The lawsuit comes days after Republicans in Congress blocked the most ambitious federal voting law in a generation, which dealt a blow to Democrats’ efforts to get the vote. President Biden and the Democratic leaders pledged to continue working to enforce state voting laws.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit is expected to accuse Georgia law of effectively discriminating against non-white voters and is intended to show that Georgia lawmakers intended to do so.

Georgian law introduced a number of new restrictions on electoral access and dramatically changed the balance of power in the electoral administration. The bill followed an election in which Georgia, a once reliably red state, turned blue in the presidential race for the first time in nearly 40 years, followed by two quick consecutive Senate seats, moving from Republicans to Democrats.

Georgia was the epicenter of former President Donald J. Trump’s months of efforts to overturn the election results. Picking up on numerous false conspiracy theories about the Georgia elections, he went on to claim that despite three separate recounts and audits – including one entirely manual – it reconfirmed the results, was fraudulent.

Critics were quick to cry that the law was rooted in the former president’s falsehoods and intended to reverse the democratic wave in Georgia, targeting the state’s absentee voting scheme, which was approved by Republicans in 2005, but the preferred method was voting for Democrats in the 2020 election amid the pandemic.

Categories
Politics

Rudy Giuliani is suspended from training regulation attributable to Trump statements

Rudy Giuliani is suspended from practicing law due to Trump statements

A New York court suspended Rudy Giuliani from practicing law in the state on Thursday, citing his “false and misleading statements” about the electoral defeat of former President Donald Trump.

The suspension, which will take effect immediately, is a blow to 77-year-old Giuliani, a former New York mayor who was once a senior Justice Department official and US attorney in Manhattan.

It also happens that criminal investigations against Giuliani in connection with his work in Ukraine are being carried out by the same federal prosecutor’s office.

Since Trump’s defeat in November, the former president and his lawyer have made false claims about the legitimacy of President Joe Biden’s election victory. They claim, without evidence, that Trump was cheated of a victory by widespread electoral fraud in key states.

Giuliani’s false statements about the Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania elections – all states Biden won – were cited in the crushing, 33-page suspension order issued by a five-person appeal panel of the New York State First Judicial Department . This division includes the Bronx and Manhattan, where Giuliani’s law firm is located.

The suspension, ordered the day before his 52nd anniversary as a licensed attorney in New York, was requested by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department.

Giuliani’s suspension is temporary pending the outcome of a full formal disciplinary hearing.

Giuliani criticized in an interview with NBC News outside his apartment in the Upper East Side that it was “ridiculous” that he would be disciplined without such a hearing.

“Everything I said [the election] comes from one witness, sometimes from two or three witnesses, ”said Giuliani. “I have affidavits from you. I have video, I have audio. And instead of looking at it, listen to the Democrats’ false allegations. “

However, the court’s order states that “the preliminary suspension is a serious remedy, available only in situations where there is an immediate need to protect the public from” violations of the professional code by a lawyer.

The court flatly denied Giuliani’s claims that the investigation into his conduct in representing Trump after the 2020 election violated his right to freedom of expression in the First Amendment.

“We conclude that there is undisputed evidence that the defendant, in his capacity as attorney for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed re-election attempt, has made demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the made public in 2020 ”, it says in the order.

The court also said that Giuliani’s “false statements were made to inappropriately support respondent’s account that widespread electoral fraud stole his client’s victory in the 2020 presidential election in the United States”.

“We conclude that the defendant’s conduct immediately jeopardizes the public interest and warrants a temporary suspension of the legal practice pending further proceedings before the attorney’s complaints committee.”

Examples of conduct cited in the warrant included Giuliani’s repeated false claims to a Pennsylvania federal judge after Election Day that Trump’s campaign “pursued an allegation of fraud” in an election-related lawsuit “when it was undeniably not the case. “

Instead, according to the order, the campaign raised an equivalent claim to protection that was “not based on fraud at all”.

Another example cited by the order was the repeated assertion by Giuliani, in an effort to discredit election results, that “the dead in Philadelphia ‘voted'”.

Giuliani claimed at various times that the ballot papers of 8,021 dead were cast, “while he also gave the figure as 30,000”.

“As an anecdotal figurehead to prove this point, he repeatedly stated that the famous heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier continued to vote years after his death.

Indeed, the ruling added, “The public records filed on this motion clearly show that the defendant’s testimony is false. Public records show that Pennsylvania formally suspended Mr. Frazier’s voting rights on February 8, 2012, three months after his death. “

Giuliani had also falsely claimed on several occasions that Pennsylvania had received more postal ballot papers than the state sent out prior to the election.

In response to the court’s inquiry, the ruling stated that Giuliani had “not denied that his factual statement that only 1.8 million postal ballots had been requested was untrue”.

“His defense is that he did not knowingly make this false statement,” the order reads. “Respondent claims he relied on an unidentified member of his’ team ‘who’ accidentally picked up information from the Pennsylvania website that incorrectly listed the information.”

But the court found, “There is simply no evidence to support this statement. For example, there is no affidavit from this alleged team member who is not by name or otherwise identified, nor is there a copy of the website that allegedly provided false information. “

In a statement, Giuliani’s lawyers said: “We are disappointed with Appeals Department’s decision to suspend Mayor Giuliani before granting a hearing on the alleged issues.”

“This is unprecedented as we believe our client is not currently a threat to the public interest,” said a statement by John Leventhal and Barry Kamins, both retired judges.

“We believe that once the issues are fully investigated at a hearing, Mr. Giuliani will be reinstated as a valued member of the legal profession which he has served so well in his many roles for so many years.”

Giuliani said in the interview outside his home: “I did not have the opportunity to be heard … how can you say I would have lied without a hearing, you did not question me.”

“If you are to say that I said something irresponsible, you have to give me a chance to defend myself … Courts cannot rule on the basis of newspapers,” said Giuliani. “I’m personally concerned about the country … only Trump attorneys are investigated.”

“Somebody has to fix this double standard justice system. I might as well be in East Germany or in Iran,” he said. I wish I were in a state that is not controlled by a party or in a city that is controlled by a party. “

Trump said in a statement that Giuliani was targeted “because he fought a fraudulent election”.

“It’s nothing like a witch hunt, and they should be ashamed,” said Trump, referring to Giuliani a “great American patriot,” “the greatest mayor in New York history,” and “the Elliot Ness of his generation.” on the prohibition agent portrayed in the television series and film “The Untouchables”.

Giuliani’s son Andrew, a former White House adviser to Trump currently seeking the Republican nomination for New York governor, said the suspension was “unacceptable” and the product of judges appointed by Democratic governors, including Governor Andrew Cuomo, whom Andrew tries to relieve.

“This goes after one of President Trump’s closest allies, and that’s exactly what it is,” said Andrew Giuliani in a video posted on his Twitter account. “I stand by my father. In the end, he did everything according to the book.”

The complaint to the Attorney Grievance Committee was filed by Manhattan Democratic Senator Brad Hoylman. “I’m happy” about the suspension, he said.

“The lawyer profession is sacred and noble,” Hoylman said in a statement. “And there can be no place in the profession for those who try to undermine and destroy the rule of law, as Rudy Giuliani has so blatantly done.”

The suspension order was issued hours before a lawyer from Giuliani appeared in Washington federal court for a hearing on his offer to dismiss a $ 1.3 billion libel suit against him by Dominion Voting Systems.

Giuliani’s claims about Dominion were cited in the suspension order.

This voting machine company accuses Giuliani of “irreparable damage” to the business while “cashing in” the “big lie” that the Trump race was stolen by widespread fraud.

Giuliani’s attorney in the case filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in April, arguing in part that Dominion’s lawsuit had not been brought in accordance with due process standards.

Dominion has filed separate, multi-billion dollar defamation suits against MyPillow and the company’s pro-Trump CEO Mike Lindell and pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell.

Additional coverage from CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger

Categories
Politics

Robert Mueller will take legislation college students behind the decision-making means of the Russia inquiry.

Robert Mueller will take law students behind the decision-making process of the Russia inquiry.

Robert S. Mueller III will teach a course at the University of Virginia’s law school intended to take students inside his investigation that concluded Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald J. Trump, the university announced on Wednesday.

The course, called “The Mueller Report and the Role of the Special Counsel,” will be taught by Mr. Mueller alongside three former federal prosecutors: James L. Quarles III, Andrew D. Goldstein and Aaron Zebley, who was Mr. Mueller’s deputy. Mr. Mueller recruited the three men to work on the investigation, which spanned two years of the Trump administration.

Mr. Mueller will lead at least one of six in-person classes and said that he hoped to bring in other top prosecutors as guest speakers, according to the university.

The course will cover the investigation chronologically, from the hiring of Mr. Mueller as special counsel in 2017 until the inquiry’s conclusion in 2019. The instructors also intend to explain the challenges that prosecutors faced and “the legal and practical context” behind critical decisions, the university said.

The final class is expected to focus on obstruction of justice and the role of special counsels in presidential accountability. The Mueller report detailed actions by Mr. Trump that many legal experts said were sufficient to ask a grand jury to indict him on charges of obstruction of justice, but Attorney General William P. Barr cleared him of obstruction soon after the report was completed.

The announcement of the course is likely to revive curiosity around the Russian inquiry, which Mr. Trump repeatedly derided as a “witch hunt” and of which Mr. Mueller has seldom spoken publicly. He was a reluctant witness during a closely watched congressional hearing in July 2019, where he testified for nearly seven hours, giving many clipped answers and largely not straying from his report’s conclusions.

Last summer, Mr. Mueller wrote an opinion essay for The Washington Post the day after Mr. Trump commuted the prison sentence of his longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr., a political operative. In the essay, Mr. Mueller defended the prosecution of Mr. Stone for federal crimes as part of the Russia inquiry.

“We made every decision in Stone’s case, as in all our cases, based solely on the facts and the law and in accordance with the rule of law,” Mr. Mueller wrote.

Mr. Zebley told the University of Virginia that the course instructors would rely on public records to explain the path of the investigation.

After the inquiry ended, Mr. Mueller, Mr. Zebley and Mr. Quarles left the Justice Department and returned to the private law firm WilmerHale in Washington, where they are partners. Mr. Goldstein is now a partner at the firm Cooley in Washington. Mr. Mueller and Mr. Zebley are both alumni of the University of Virginia’s law school.

All four lawyers had notable careers at the Justice Department and said they were looking forward to sharing those experiences with students, according to the university.

“I look forward to engaging with the students this fall,” Mr. Mueller said.

Categories
Politics

Robert Mueller to assist educate regulation college class on Trump-Russia probe

Robert Mueller to help teach law school class on Trump-Russia probe

U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller makes a statement on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election at the Justice Department in Washington, U.S., May 29, 2019.

Jim Bourg | Reuters

The notoriously tight-lipped former special counsel Robert Mueller will be opening up about his Russia probe to law school students in Virginia this fall.

The University of Virginia School of Law said Wednesday that Mueller will participate in a class on his investigation, which examined alleged ties between former President Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign and the Kremlin. The class will be taught by three other prosecutors who were on Mueller’s high-profile team.

The class, “The Mueller Report and the Role of the Special Counsel,” will be taught in person in Charlottesville over six sessions. Mueller himself will lead at least one class, according to the school.

In a short statement provided by the law school, Mueller said he was fortunate to be returning to the school where he earned his law degree in 1973.

“I look forward to engaging with the students this fall,” Mueller said. Mueller returned to private practice after his investigation and is a partner at the law firm WilmerHale.

The class will be taught by Aaron Zebley, the former deputy special counsel; Jim Quarles, Mueller’s former senior counsel; and Andrew Goldstein, the former senior assistant special counsel.

According to a news release provide by the law school, the class will “focus on a key set of decisions made during the special counsel’s investigation.”

“The course will start chronologically with the launch of the investigation, including Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Other sessions will focus on navigating the relationship with the Justice Department and Congress, investigative actions relating to the White House and the importance of the Roger Stone prosecution,” the school said.

“The final sessions will focus on obstruction of justice, presidential accountability and the role of special counsel in that accountability,” the release added.

Mueller’s investigation began in 2017 and wrapped up in 2019, with the release of “The Mueller Report,” which became a bestseller.

In the report, the longtime former Federal Bureau of Investigation director concluded that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russian government.

Mueller also outlined ten episodes that raised the possibility that Trump had obstructed justice, but declined to say definitively whether Trump had committed a crime, citing longstanding Justice Department policy against charging sitting presidents.

According to UVA, Zebley said the course will “use the extensive public record to explore why some paths were taken and not others.”

Subscribe to CNBC Pro for the TV livestream, deep insights and analysis  on how to invest during the next presidential term.

Categories
Politics

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani not above the regulation, prosecutors say

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani blasts investigators as federal probe heats up

Rudolph Giuliani, attorney for President Donald Trump, holds a press conference on Thursday, November 19, 2020, in the Republican National Committee on lawsuits related to the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Tom Williams | CQ Appeal, Inc. | Getty Images

Federal prosecutors said in a court case on Friday that “the mere fact” that Rudy Giuliani is a lawyer – one who represented former President Donald Trump – does not mean that he is “above the law or immune to criminal investigation “.

The filing pushed the efforts of Giuliani’s attorneys to attack the legality of search warrants on his iCloud account in 2019 and on his Manhattan home and office last month, as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into his activities in and related to the Ukraine were issued.

Eighteen electronic devices belonging to the former Mayor of New York and Giuliani Partners employees were seized under these arrest warrants in late April.

Giuliani’s lawyers argue that finding his iCloud – which Giuliani hadn’t known about for about 18 months – may have violated his legal and client rights, and Trump’s right as president to protect his communications with his attorney.

And they say recent search warrants may be compromised by their reliance on information from iCloud search.

Another well-known Republican attorney, Victoria Toensing, has been the subject of similar search warrants.

“The warrants authorizing the search of these devices were issued by a United States district judge – this court – on the basis of a finding that there was likely reason to believe that these devices contained evidence, fruits, and instruments of certain federal crimes.” the US attorney’s office for the southern borough of New York wrote in its new filing with the Manhattan Federal Court.

Prosecutors said searching for devices and electronic accounts owned by lawyers like Giuliani and Toensing “requires special care to protect the confidentiality of attorney-client communications that may appear in search materials.”

To that end, prosecutors said they had “gone beyond these obligations” by asking a judge to appoint a so-called special master to examine the recently seized materials for potentially privileged material, which was then approved by investigators who direct the material, Criminal investigation of Giuliani would be kept away.

Prosecutors said a so-called filter team had served the purpose to review the 2019 arrest warrants for his and Toensing’s iCloud accounts.

“But to be clear, the mere fact that Giuliani and Toensing are attorneys does not mean that they are above the law or immune from criminal investigations,” the prosecutor wrote.

“But that is exactly what Giuliani and Toensing argue in their motions: because they are lawyers, the enforcement of search warrants against them has been illegal and inappropriate, and as such they are entitled to the extraordinary and unprecedented means of converting a legitimately issued search warrant into subpoena so they can review their own materials and decide what the government will see. That is not the law and their applications should otherwise be denied, “the file said.

The prosecution argued in the filing that a judge should reject requests by Giuliani and Toensing to unseal the affidavits submitted to obtain the arrest warrants.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

Giuliani’s attorney Arthur Aidala pushed back against prosecution filing.

“According to the government, they are alluding to the fact that Mr Giuliani argues that he is above the law,” Aidala wrote in a text message to CNBC.

“Nobody says Mayor Giuliani is above the law,” Aidala wrote.

“However, the government has a duty to follow the specific procedures that must be followed when examining material obtained from a lawyer using a search warrant rather than issuing a subpoena.”

Aidala added: “Every attorney has legal and client rights that he must protect on behalf of his clients.”

“That privilege is doubled when the attorney’s client is the President of the United States, who also has executive privilege,” Aidala said.

Giuliani played a key role in attempting to gather harmful information about President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in connection with their business dealings in Ukraine. At the time, Biden was preparing to run for president and was widely viewed as Trump’s most viable Democratic challenger.